194

I'm using the async.eachLimit function to control the maximum number of operations at a time.

const { eachLimit } = require("async");

function myFunction() {
 return new Promise(async (resolve, reject) => {
   eachLimit((await getAsyncArray), 500, (item, callback) => {
     // do other things that use native promises.
   }, (error) => {
     if (error) return reject(error);
     // resolve here passing the next value.
   });
 });
}

As you can see, I can't declare the myFunction function as async because I don't have access to the value inside the second callback of the eachLimit function.

4
  • "As you can see, i can't declare the myFunction as async" --- can you elaborate more?
    – zerkms
    Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 0:44
  • 1
    Oh, ok... sorry. I need the constructor because i need the async.eachLimit to avoid more than 500 asynchronous operations at a time. I'm downloading and extracting data from text files and i want avoid to much asynchronous operations, after i extract the data, i must return a Promise with the data, and i wont be able to return it from the callback of the async.eachLimit.
    – user5487299
    Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 0:50
  • 1. Why do you need the await? Async is already a control-flow mechanism. 2. If you want to use async.js with promises inside node.js take a look at async-q
    – slebetman
    Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 3:44
  • To avoid callback hell, and if something throws, the outer promise would catch.
    – user5487299
    Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 12:28

4 Answers 4

141

You're effectively using promises inside the promise constructor executor function, so this is the Promise constructor anti-pattern.

Your code is a good example of the main risk: not propagating all errors safely. Read why there.

In addition, the use of async/await can make the same traps even more surprising. Compare:

let p = new Promise(resolve => {
  ""(); // TypeError
  resolve();
});

(async () => {
  await p;
})().catch(e => console.log("Caught: " + e)); // Catches it.

with a naive (wrong) async equivalent:

let p = new Promise(async resolve => {
  ""(); // TypeError
  resolve();
});

(async () => {
  await p;
})().catch(e => console.log("Caught: " + e)); // Doesn't catch it!

Look in your browser's web console for the last one.

The first one works because any immediate exception in a Promise constructor executor function conveniently rejects the newly constructed promise (but inside any .then you're on your own).

The second one doesn't work because any immediate exception in an async function rejects the implicit promise returned by the async function itself.

Since the return value of a promise constructor executor function is unused, that's bad news!

Your code

There's no reason you can't define myFunction as async:

async function myFunction() {
  let array = await getAsyncArray();
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    eachLimit(array, 500, (item, callback) => {
      // do other things that use native promises.
    }, error => {
      if (error) return reject(error);
      // resolve here passing the next value.
    });
  });
}

Though why use outdated concurrency control libraries when you have await?

11
  • 17
    You don't need return await: return new Promise is sufficient. Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 16:02
  • 2
    I officially approve this answer, I'd have said exactly the same :-)
    – Bergi
    Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 17:10
  • 1
    @celoxxx Have a look here. You indeed should never use async.js with promises
    – Bergi
    Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 17:11
  • 1
    @celoxxx Just drop the types and it becomes plain js. You should not use async.js because the different interfaces - node-style callbacks vs promises - cause too much friction and lead to unnecessary complicated and error-prone code.
    – Bergi
    Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 20:35
  • 1
    I agree with you... But this code is old, and i'm refactoring to use events + async.js (to control the limit of async, yet. If you know a better way, please say).
    – user5487299
    Commented Mar 27, 2017 at 20:39
73

Based on the feedback given by @Bergi, I want to highlight that I agree with the answers given above and would rather choose a different approach.

However, if you need to have async inside your promise, I would consider using something like this:

const operation1 = Promise.resolve(5)
const operation2 = Promise.resolve(15)
const publishResult = () => Promise.reject(`Can't publish`)

let p = new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
  (async () => {
    try {
      const op1 = await operation1;
      const op2 = await operation2;

      if (op2 == null) {
         throw new Error('Validation error');
      }

      const res = op1 + op2;
      const result = await publishResult(res);
      resolve(result)
    } catch (err) {
      reject(err)
    }
  })()
});

(async () => {
  await p;
})().catch(e => console.log("Caught: " + e));
  1. The function passed to Promise constructor is not async, so linters don't show errors.
  2. All of the async functions can be called in sequential order using await.
  3. Custom errors can be added to validate the results of async operations
  4. The error is caught nicely eventually.

A drawback though is that you have to remember putting try/catch and attaching it to reject.

11
  • it gives linting error: Promises must be handled appropriately or explicitly marked as ignored with the void operator github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/blob/v4.28.0/…
    – GorvGoyl
    Commented Jul 4, 2021 at 11:33
  • 3
    While this works, you might as well get rid of the wrapping promise, try/catch etc, and do the same with the remaining of your IEFE function: i.sstatic.net/S3pU2.png
    – noseratio
    Commented Jul 10, 2021 at 1:51
  • 3
    @noseratio can't agree more. the op though asked if it's okay to use async inside of a Promise body. Commented Jul 10, 2021 at 15:21
  • This answer is a perfect complement of jib's answer and exactly what that I need to understand. Commented Nov 11, 2022 at 13:03
  • @VladyslavZavalykhatko If you agree with noseratio, it should be clear that it's not okay to use async inside of a new Promise. It's not even "neater".
    – Bergi
    Commented May 1, 2023 at 18:54
10

BELIEVING IN ANTI-PATTERNS IS AN ANTI-PATTERN

Throws within an async promise callback can easily be caught.

(async () => {
    try {
        await new Promise (async (FULFILL, BREAK) => {
            try {
                throw null;
            }
            catch (BALL) {
                BREAK (BALL);
            }
        });
    }
    catch (BALL) {
        console.log ("(A) BALL CAUGHT", BALL);
        throw BALL;
    }
}) ().
catch (BALL => {
    console.log ("(B) BALL CAUGHT", BALL);
});

or even more simply,

(async () => {
    await new Promise (async (FULFILL, BREAK) => {
        try {
            throw null;
        }
        catch (BALL) {
            BREAK (BALL);
        }
    });
}) ().
catch (BALL => {
    console.log ("(B) BALL CAUGHT", BALL);
});
5
  • 2
    It really is a pattern that should never be used. Just remove the line await new Promise (async (FULFILL, BREAK) => { and replace BREAK with throw.
    – Bergi
    Commented Feb 18, 2023 at 8:48
  • 2
    Actually no, this is anti-pattern and demonstrates you do not fully understand Promises and the supporting async..await syntax. Moreover it's very ugly, especially the eye-crossing line of }) ().
    – Mulan
    Commented Feb 22, 2023 at 16:46
  • 2
    "BELIEVING IN ANTI-PATTERNS IS AN ANTI-PATTERN" sounds like an attempt to be contrarian for the sake of it. Adding pointless wrappers on top of promises like this makes code objectively more confusing and is very much an antipattern. Even if this was good practice, JS isn't COBOL, so naming variables in all caps and calling (resolve, reject) (FULFILL, BREAK) would never fly in any PR or linter I know of.
    – ggorlen
    Commented Mar 2, 2023 at 3:27
  • @ggorlen--onLLMstrike has the right of it. Commented Jun 7, 2023 at 17:45
  • 1
    Believing that believing in anti-patterns is an anti-pattern is an anti-pattern. Commented Apr 25 at 16:01
4

I didn't realized it directly by reading the other answers, but what is important is to evaluate your async function to turn it into a Promise.

So if you define your async function using something like:

let f = async () => {
    // ... You can use await, try/catch, throw syntax here (see answer of Vladyslav Zavalykhatko) .. 
};

your turn it into a promise using:

let myPromise = f()

You can then manipulate is as a Promise, using for instance Promise.all([myPromise])...

Of course, you can turn it into a one liner using:

(async () => { code with await })()
1
  • This should be the top answer, it is actually what u want to do with the new Promise(async) thing, u jsut want to store the async and just call it, it's the same Thank u for opening my eyes lol
    – Pipo
    Commented Aug 30, 2023 at 16:05